Man offers $250,000 for proof of evolution

[Mrogreturns]

Evidence in irrelevant, to prove some thing you must test it and use it to predict some future occurance.....

Oh you mean the sort of thing that is routinely done with respect to evolutionary theory?

 

[CenturionV]

Oh you mean the sort of thing that is routinely done with respect to evolutionary theory?

Where? Prove to me that it is routinely done with evolutionary theory? Prove to me that the results of said tests are true (I'm not going to just "trust you" that these test are totally conclusive, totally consistant, and totally unbiased) Tell me when did we last recreat evolution over millions of years? Even totally recreating human evolution in a lab woukd prove just that. That evolution works in a lab with dozens of intelligent sentient humans working hoards of instrument with all there might and intelligence to get some thing to evolve, to prove evolution you have to prove it by observing it as it occurs in its natural enviroment, over its natural time span.....not over a few months or years in a lab or controlled enviroment, with a bunch of dudes babying the thing.

Lets review the scientific method.....

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

1. Have you observed marked human evolution, in its natural frame of reference, over it natural time table? (lab work does not cut it, there were not hoards of scientist working the primordial stew, to get that life or "semi-life" to occur.)
2. This would require that you have completed 1........ which I'm sure you have not.
3. well you would need number 2 to have done this one, and you can't just say "oh well its impossible to observe human evolution, in nature, over natural timespans, so we get to cheat and skip strait to predictions" as you post suggests.
4. Its at this point where you might actually get to use that fancy lab set you got, unfortunetly you can't test some thing you have not observed in its natural occurence.
5. Lets assume some how (time machine, extra extra EXTRA long human lifespan, magic, etc) you actually got to this point, it would have to all line up, obviously it cannot ever get to this point.

Your post suggest that your telling me that using the scientific method some how you have actually managed to complete stage one? You can't just look at some rock, tree or fossil, and say "hmm this looks like it evolved from a simple single celled creature, which evolved from a rock" then skip right ahead and start making all these "predictions" based on your ideas.

In true science based TOTALLY on the scientific method, evolution would have been dismissed immediatly as totally unprovable by science, simply because its unobservable. Science can only work on fast and currently occuring activity, not on things past. And evolution occurs to slowly to be observable.

 

[yoshi74]

Yawn! Such a crap. He would deny anything as a proof. You can't proof something to someone who is already convinced that there can be no proof. This is the same as our thousends of 'proof that...' threads. The fact that someone bets some money he never have to pay is just a cheap trick.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Where? Prove to me that it is routinely done with evolutionary theory? ..................

You previously suggested that to "prove" a theory you need to use it predict something accurately. Now you seem to be suggesting that to "prove" something you need to be absolutley certain that it is true. The scientific method can not do that for any theory.

In true science based TOTALLY on the scientific method, evolution would have been dismissed immediatly as totally unprovable by science, simply because its unobservable.

No theory can be proven by science (in the sense of being absolutely certain of it truth). Science requires that theories be testable, not that they be provable- evolution is testable. Mechanisms that can explain the diversity of life are observable.

 

[CenturionV]

No theory can be proven by science (in the sense of being absolutely certain of it truth). Science requires that theories be testable, not that they be provable- evolution is testable. Mechanisms that can explain the diversity of life are observable.

In what way is evolution even a theory? I agree verybody likes to call it "Theory of evolution" but it has not even passed the observation phase. In fact its not even really a hypothesis, for actual human evolution. Its a hypothesis for the possibility of actual human evolution, its based on observations of the possibility that observable data could be explained by a theory of human evolution.

You've observed data that leads you to believe that human evolution COULD be a possible hypothesis. But human evolution is not even at theory point yet, because its not even passed natural observation phase, you cannot skip phases in the scientific theory and still call it science, its then become faith.

Science can never tell us what happened in the past, it can just guess, it can only tell us whats happening now.

 

[The Person]

Some people need to have reality driven up their nose before they see it, and some people not even then. The sad part is not that this is true, but that those people usually use that argument against you. This guy is one of those people.

 

[Mapache]

And evolution occurs to slowly to be observable.

Not at all. In hospitals the fauna of germs is constantly evolving requiring new antibiotics with new effects to treat the infected. Only the fit(i.e. most resistant to the current antibiotics) germs survive and pass their abilities to the next generations. All this can happen within a few days. EDIT: And it is unwanted. This is not breeding.
The theory of evolution requires logical thinking.

Gravity is much more complex.

 

[CenturionV]

Not at all. In hospitals the fauna of germs is constantly evolving requiring new antibiotics with new effects to treat the infected. Only the fit(i.e. most resistant to the current antibiotics) germs survive and pass their abilities to the next generations. All this can happen within a few days.
The theory of evolution requires logical thinking.

Gravity is much more complex.

I see, and this proves human evolution how?

Your idea of logic is that because A. germs can adapt to antibiotics. thus B. Germs are evolving, some how gaining new information on how to avoid antibiotics. thus C. Humans must have evolved from single celled orginisms.

You have proven exactly what you said. Germs can adapt on a small scale. Now when I see a germ that grows big, builds cities, starts war, reads books, or starts talking, I'll believe that human evolution may have been possible.

This says nothing about humans. I was speaking in terms of human evolution. It only proves that germs are amazingly adaptable creatures.

 

[Mrogreturns]

In what way is evolution even a theory? I agree verybody likes to call it "Theory of evolution" but it has not even passed the observation phase. In fact its not even really a hypothesis, for actual human evolution. Its a hypothesis for the possibility of actual human evolution, its based on observations of the possibility that observable data could be explained by a theory of human evolution.

You've observed data that leads you to believe that human evolution COULD be a possible hypothesis. But human evolution is not even at theory point yet, because its not even passed natural observation phase, you cannot skip phases in the scientific theory and still call it science, its then become faith.

Science can never tell us what happened in the past, it can just guess, it can only tell us whats happening now.

So are you are complaining that we have never observed the theory? Or you are claiming that there are no observations consistent with evolution? Or if neither- what ARE you talking about?

 

[CenturionV]

So are you are complaining that we have never observed the theory? Or you are claiming that there are no observations consistent with evolution? Or if neither- what ARE you talking about?

I'm saying that human evolution has not been observed to the point of being considered a valid theory, yet it is treated just like one by most scientist.

When its really more of a belief, nobody ever saw it, and its not occuring at a fast enough rate at present to be measured accurately, yet its still talked about just like it was already observed, already tested, and already fact. When its none of the above.

And then creationists are attacked for having "no evidence" for creationism, when in reality and by the scientific method, both ideas are at the same stage, unobserved, untested, unproven, faith. Surrounding evidence is all relative to the preconceived idea chosen by given scientist. Evolutionist work to find evidence about or for evolution, creationist work to find evidence about or for creation. There is no difference. They are equal scientifically.

Thats the way true science works, you can't go out finding all these little bricks of information supporting evolution, stack em all together nicely, and declare it as valid. Its not about support, or the amount of evidence accumulated, its about if the scientific method has been applied, and if it has, and has rendered no result, (like in both evolution and creationism) they should be equally examined.

Mass of evidence is irrelevant if the scientific method, the very basis of science, cannot be applied.

 

[Mapache]

This says nothing about humans. I was speaking in terms of human evolution. It only proves that germs are amazingly adaptable creatures.

Germs are adapting only by mutation and selection. One existing germ is pretty inflexible. Humans are truly flexible. But their evolution took some time.

 

[CenturionV]

Germs are adapting only by mutation and selection. One existing germ is pretty inflexible. Humans are truly flexible. But their evolution took some time.

And how do you know that the ability to mutate is not inherently availible to the germs already, and part of there flexibility? information cannot simply appear out of knowhere, to suggest so ignores basic facts of the universe, order cannot come from disorder, knowledge, from lack of knowledge.

And it STILL does nothing for your problem of human evolution, at best it proves that germs are capable of limited evolution on there own (which I doubt, its more likely that they have a set limit of adaptability, thats probably why a true super-germ has not been discovered. We still don't have germs that can talk, walk or play piano.) For it to be truly amazing we need to have the germs do some thing beyond what there normal activity is.

Its also well known among biologists that some germs where already adapted to anti-biotics. Even where they have never been used, and from times before they were used, also tests have been conducted with germs, hitting them with high level anti-biotics in large numbers, yet the rate at which they "adapted" did not increase or decrease, suggesting that the mutations are occuring randomly, not as a result of "survival instinct"

 

[embitteredpoet]

@CenturionV
It's very easy to win an argument by continually shifting the goalposts...
In principle there is nothing different between bacteria evolving and humans evolving. If you want to say that evolution doesn't happen because we can't observe it in humans, go ahead. It is a completely flawed and entirely arbitrary conditon.
You keep on harping about scientific method. Perfection debunked that in the other thread.
You have heard of MRSA right?

 

[CenturionV]

@CenturionV
It's very easy to win an argument by continually shifting the goalposts...
In principle there is nothing different between bacteria evolving and humans evolving. If you want to say that evolution doesn't happen because we can't observe it in humans, go ahead. It is a completely flawed and entirely arbitrary conditon.
You keep on harping about scientific method. Perfection debunked that in the other thread.
You have heard of MRSA right?

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying it should not be called proven science. Why do you evolutionists always assume I'm attacking evolution? I'm not, I'm attacking you treatment of it in science. I don't care if you believe in human evolution, or the easter bunny or santa claus or whatever. I just care that you should not call some thing a scientific fact that only idiots would'nt believe, when it has not passed the basic tests of your own scientific method.

 

[embitteredpoet]

Evolution is merely the best hypothesis to fit the facts. You come up with a better one...
Scientific fact is not something that is ever true, all good scientists (and some bad ones like myself) keep an open mind to new discoveries that could modify or even debunk current theory.
Creationism is this generations flat earth society.

 

[CenturionV]

Evolution is merely the best hypothesis to fit the facts. You come up with a better one...
Scientific fact is not something that is ever true, all good scientists (and some bad ones like myself) keep an open mind to new discoveries that could modify or even debunk current theory.
Creationism is this generations flat earth society..

Well there we go, truth at last, you believe that your facts tell you that evolution is true, and every fact i've seen as told me that creationism is true, there is just to much evidence for it to be wrong. And no I'm not interested in posting hours and hours worth of it for us to debate until this thread gets to be 50 pages long with 500 replies. Considering its doubtful, that we will ever come to any type of compromise.

 

[carlosMM]

can someone give that guy Ernst Mayrs bank account number, please?

 

[stormbind]

please delete..

 

[Mapache]

evolution, at best it proves that germs are capable of limited evolution on there own (which I doubt, its more likely that they have a set limit of adaptability, thats probably why a true super-germ has not been discovered. We still don't have germs that can talk, walk or play piano.) For it to be truly amazing we need to have the germs do some thing beyond what there normal activity is.

If there were germs playing piano I would start to believe in creationism.
I anyways don't understand why humans waste their resources to play piano. Must be something like the antlers of a moose.

 

[King Alexander]

This is my advice to the man: "Keep your money, because you'll going to need them for psychiatric treatment and education". - it isn't healthy for the mind to believe in fairy tales like creationism.

He'd better donate his money to scientists trying to find cures for diseases(physical and mental).